Re: Database file copy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Srini Raghavan
Subject Re: Database file copy
Date
Msg-id 240691.51848.qm@web80803.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Database file copy  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thanks for considering our special scenario. I did not use the vacuum freeze option because the documentation said it is going to be deprecrated. Based on the positive votes so far, I gather that a vacuum (freeze) syntax will be supported in some version in the future, until then, I can continue to use the existing vacuum freeze syntax? I did try it and it works.
 
Thank you,
 
Srini
 
 



From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>; Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>; Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>; pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Srini Raghavan <sixersrini@yahoo.com>
Sent: Fri, January 14, 2011 3:36:02 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Database file copy

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
>> If we're going to be supporting that long term, we should probably
>> change the note about FREEZE being deprecated, though.
>
>> So, still +1 on removing the wording about FREEZE being deprecated,
>> but instead we should mention what actually *is* deprecated (the
>> omission of the parentheses).
>
> If we're going to do that, we should deprecate the unparenthesized
> syntax altogether, with an eye to de-reserving VERBOSE and ANALYZE
> as well.

I'm not wildly enthusiastic about breaking this with only one
intervening release.  We normally support deprecated syntax for quite
a bit longer than that.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Marti Raudsepp
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Return command tag 'REPLACE X' for CREATE OR REPLACE statements.
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: LOCK for non-tables